Hon. Alice Wong, P.C.

Due to multiple inquiries on the vote at third reading of Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), Alice Wong issued the following statement:

“Just like many other pieces of Liberal legislation, it comes with honourable intentions, but it is designed to turn attention away from the many other shortcomings of this government.

I explicitly abstained from voting on Bill C-6 during second reading to allow the legislation a fair examination with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST), which would provide an outlet for amendments.

There were 290 written briefs. Some contained persuasive suggestions.

In particular, the government should not be in the business of dictating conversations people have with each other. Bill C-6 puts an implicit veil of prosecution on such conversation if the “incorrect” topic is discussed.

We saw this with the passage of Bill C-16 in the previous (42nd) Parliament.

To address the shortcomings of Bill C-6, the JUST Committee considered an amendment to explicitly state that “the expression of views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity, such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity” is permissible.

This was voted down. This was a material consideration in deciding my vote.

Finally, out of the constituents that wrote into my office to suggest an action on Bill C-6, the vast majority urged me to vote against the bill. And thus, I did on third reading.

For those of you that believe this does not affect you, it does. This is just the tip of the iceberg for the Liberal government as there is more going forward. Bill C-10 will give the government much power over what you can see over the internet. Bill C-36, under the guise of hate speech, will give the government the authority to prosecute you for disagreement.

All of this legislation is designed to keep Canadians quiet, unless if they say something the government approves. This is currently going on in Hong Kong, and now Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party are slowly bringing it into Canada. This is not the Canada that I want.”

In response to multiple media inquiries regarding the travel of parliamentarians, Alice Wong, Member of Parliament for Richmond Centre, made the following statement:

“Since the Government of British Columbia’s declaration of the state of emergency as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, I have not left Canada or British Columbia. I continue to stay in Richmond, where I also continue to perform my parliamentary duties remotely until such time the pandemic is over. My office continues to operate, where constituents receive services by virtual means.

According to the BC Centre for Disease Control’s statistics to date, the City of Richmond has the lowest per capita cumulative COVID-19 cases in the Metro Vancouver region and I am proud of the community’s efforts to stay safe.

The pandemic has caused much hardship for many, and indeed for some it has cost their lives. I offer my condolences to those impacted.

To my fellow constituents – have hope. This pandemic storm too shall pass.”

2020 Year-end greetings from Alice Wong:

The following is a transcript:

Hello everyone. I’m Alice Wong, your Member of Parliament for Richmond Centre. Due to COVID-19 restrictions in BC, we are unable to gather and have celebrations with our friends and families. We have to do so virtually. Howeever, the season is still a time of peace, hope and love. Don’t forget we can still care for our loved ones remotely. From our family to yours, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a very blessed New Year!

RICHMOND, BC — MP Alice Wong sponsored electronic petition e-2451, on the topic of Birth Tourism.  The petition was created by Karen Leung, of Richmond, British Columbia.

Alice Wong stated, “I am happy to represent those in Richmond and across Canada that wish to voice their concerns to Parliament in the form of a petition.  The practice of birth tourism has received much attention over the past four years and this petition reflects concern the growing concerns of Canadians in urban centres as written by Ms. Leung.”

Alice Wong continued, “I have outlined my views in depth on Birth Tourism with my Open Letter on Birth Tourism.  I firmly believe that Birth Tourism is in the federal jurisdiction to solve, and that I am in favour of birthright citizenship, but only to those that are born of Canadians or those that are permanent residents.”

About Sponsoring Petitions

According to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit, the MP, whose role it is to make the presentation on behalf of the petitioners, is not required to be in agreement with the content of any petition he or she may choose to present, and no such inference is to be drawn.

MP Alice Wong’s current policy is to present petitions produced by constituents from Richmond or a related opposition portfolio.

January 28, 2020

An open letter on birth tourism from MP Alice Wong

There have been multiple stories in the media in January 2020 on the topic of birth tourism. This lengthy letter is to offer perspective of this office and the very real impact it has on our community in Richmond, British Columbia.

Certain media perspectives talk about imprecise statistics or the need to perform lengthy studies on quantifying the exact amount of birth tourism. This is an argument presented as a stalling smokescreen for the underlying issue, which is examining whether being born on Canadian soil is solely justifiable grounds to grant Canadian citizenship. For those looking to obtain evidence on the existence and magnitude of birth tourism, I suggest, off the record, to talk with nurses and doctors of our hospitals that handle our maternity wards and deal with this issue on the front lines. The non-resident births reported are a reasonable proxy for birth tourism.

Given the relative costs of healthcare for non-residents, Canada is not known as a medical tourism destination except for the purposes of birth tourism, where birthing houses are openly advertised internationally for these purposes. Whether there are one or ten thousand birth tourists is not relevant. Instead, I argue that it should be a requirement that some amount of connection to Canada is required to grant citizenship beyond solely happening to be born on Canadian soil.

There are many ways to become Canadian per the Citizenship Act. I will list the three most common methods. You could be born to a Canadian parent (jus sanguinis, “right of blood”). You can immigrate (through various programs including refugee status) to Canada, become a permanent resident for 3 years, and apply for Canadian citizenship (naturalization). A third method is to be born on Canadian soil (jus soli, “right of soil”). The latter of the three is subject to exploitation.

I do not think many will argue that being born to a Canadian is an obvious connection to Canada. Indeed, the Citizenship Act was amended in 2009 to not allow the passing of Canadian citizenship to those that are two non-resident generations born abroad – the motive behind this is that the connection to Canada has been lost to the country they were born.

Another way is establishing a connection to Canada through immigration. The process to get into Canada as a permanent resident is a lengthy process, and hundreds of thousands of people submit their applications yearly, because Canadian citizenship is cherished world-wide. I entered Canada through this route, as have many of Richmond’s residents. Canadians have rights that citizens of many other countries do not.

While we have many rights, the obligations of Canadian citizens, especially non-resident Canadians, is relatively few. Thus, we should not treat the granting of Canadian citizenship lightly. Contrast this with our American counterparts, where if they are citizens, have an obligation and responsibility to remit income taxes on worldwide income, whether they are resident or not. Canadian non-residents do not have this financial obligation, a key difference.

As a result, we should not allow jus soli to be used as a loophole for citizenship. The babies that are born via birth tourism only have the most peripheral connection to Canada. Those that come to Canada on a tourist visa strictly for the purpose of giving birth to babies is a slap in the face to the millions of immigrants that decided to make Canada their home, follow the rules, and obtain Canadian citizenship.

There are three “red herring” arguments that have typically been presented as reasons to ignore the issue, and I will briefly go over them. One is fears of stateless babies – that there will be thousands of babies born without any nationality. The second is injustice arguments regarding refugee admissions and subsequent childbirth. Finally, others have argued that changing provincial jurisdiction policies will ‘solve’ the problem. All three are incorrect.

In regards to stateless babies, nearly all states have jus sanguinis policies concerning the conveying of citizenship to babies, the only question being whether they need to apply for it. A baby born to non-resident foreign nationals would inherit the citizenship of the foreign nationality. In other western democracies, both Australia and the United Kingdom have enacted laws removing jus soli as being sufficient to convey citizenship, and there have not been stories of stateless children born. Even if it was to be the case, per the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness that Canada ratified in 1978, the Citizenship Act has a “catch-all” rule that permits Canadian citizenship to those that have always been stateless.

In regards to refugee claimants, duly admitted refugees are afforded the rights of permanent residents and their children born in Canada would be considered Canadian citizens (and if their originating country allows for dual citizenship, that of the originating country). No suggestion to remove this provision from the laws governing refugee claimants has been seriously suggested, and I can assure the critics that any attempt to remove these protections from refugees will be fought by myself and caucus colleagues.

In regards to addressing birth tourism through other government jurisdictions, the provincial government has the ability to regulate the usage of healthcare, and indeed, there have been confirmed stories of unpaid hospital bills of non-residents and also stories of resident pregnant mothers going into labour that have had to be turned away to other hospitals due to capacity constraints. A hospital emergency ward is not going to turn away mothers in labour, whether they have pre-paid for their deliveries or not. In other words, the issue of birth tourism is a federal jurisdiction issue to solve.

To be clear, I am in favour of birthright citizenship, but only to those that are born of Canadians or those that are permanent residents.

Birth tourism must stop – if non-resident mothers and fathers wish their babies to receive Canadian citizenship, there are plenty of avenues for them to obtain legal permanent residency, establish their Canadian roots, and they and their children will be welcomed with open arms like the millions of other immigrants such as myself that make our great nation.

2020-01-28-OpenLetterOnBirthTourism

June 15, 2018

Richmond, BC – Hon. Alice Wong, Member of Parliament for Richmond Centre, made the following statement regarding the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32:

“In 2015, Trinity Western University opened a campus in my constituency in downtown Richmond, offering Bachelor and Masters degrees as well as language training. They, along with other public and private educational institutions allow students the choice of where and what they wish to learn. Collectively, educational institutions allow students to choose the subject of education they wish to receive, choose the quality of education they wish to receive, and choose the values that their educational providers have. These choices, and many others, are ultimately up to the student to decide. Nobody is compelled to attend a specific educational institution.

The Supreme Court decision will ultimately diminish student choice and continue the trend towards a monolithic culture where one has to subscribe to a specific set of beliefs in order to access the education needed to practice a regulated profession. We have also seen a similar instance of this exclusion of belief by the current Liberal government with the enforcement of the “values attestation” in order to apply for Canada Summer Jobs funding.

There is no reason to believe this decision will not also apply to other regulated professions in British Columbia beyond the Law Society of BC. Examples of this include the Chartered Professional Accountants of BC, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC, the College of Dental Surgeons of BC, and many others.

Whether your beliefs are religious, agnostic, or atheist, they should not impair your availability of choice. Canadians value diversity, but in recent times it is clear our government and courts only embrace those values they agree to, regardless of the rights of Canadians have to their own individual values. Canada is being made less inclusive, less tolerant and ultimately less free as a result of this recent Supreme Court decision.”

For inquiries, contact:
Office of Hon. Alice Wong, MP (Richmond Centre)
alice.wong@parl.gc.ca
613-995-2021

The following is a letter sent to Service Canada in regards to the Member of Parliament’s input concerning validation of the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs Program.

If the Member of Parliament does not participate in the validation, the recommendations as provided by Service Canada will remain for the accepted applicants, as deemed by Service Canada.

===================

March 29, 2018

Elsa Chu del Aguila
Director, Citizen Services
Service Canada

Re: Canada Summer Jobs Grant 2018 – Validation

Dear Elsa,

Thank you for the work that you and your staff perform on behalf of Canadians in the Vancouver area. Both our office and myself have been highly appreciative of your efforts in past years, and we continue to be today.

I regret to inform you that I will not be signing the validation of the 2018 list of projects.

Due to directives from the Liberal government, the application process for the Canada Summer Jobs Grant in 2018 required all applicants to agree to an attestation stating (partially), “Both the job and my organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression”.

The Canada Summer Jobs attestation is little more than a politically motivated intervention. The functional effect is that an organization has to sign an attestation stating they share certain values with the Liberal Party of Canada in order to be eligible to receive funding. This is a slippery slope that I cannot and will not condone with my signature.

Indeed, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms permits the right to freedom of belief and opinion, even those that are contrary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Upon surveying successful applicants from the 2017 cycle of the Canada Summer Jobs Grant application, I have discovered that many of my constituent groups could not sign the attestation as presented in the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs cycle. They have been effectively denied the right to access the Canada Summer Jobs program this year due to having a different opinion than the Liberals. This is unacceptable.

Once again, I would like to emphasize this is not the fault of you or the front-line staff of Service Canada, who are tasked with faithfully executing the directives of the government. My concern is with the political interference over the administration of what was otherwise a well-designed program.

Sincerely,

Hon. Alice Wong, P.C.
M.P. for Richmond Centre

The following is a video of MP Alice Wong’s remarks after the Conservative caucus meeting held in Victoria, BC on January 24, 2018:

The following is a transcript:

Hello, this is your Member of Parliament, Hon. Alice Wong, speaking to you from the National Caucus of the Conservative Party of Canada, in beautiful Victoria, BC under the leadership of the Hon. Andrew Scheer.

I hope each and every one of you had a wonderful holiday season and a very happy new year!

At national caucus I raise the many issues facing the people of Richmond to my colleagues from across Canada; issues such as the increased tax burden on families and small businesses. We will continue to fight for low taxes so that more people can spend their own hard earned dollars on their families and on their businesses.

Justin Trudeau has failed to even begin to address the Fentanyl crisis that is sweeping across the nation. Instead of stopping the spread of deadly drugs, he is choosing to spend his time rushing through the legalization of marijuana. The Canadian Medical Association has great concerns about the legislation, but Justin Trudeau has decided to ignore their advice and put his poorly written and foolish bill through to the Senate. So much for evidence-based policy when he won’t even listen to the expert advice of medical professionals.

And recently, we have fought against the Trudeau Liberals’ attempt to introduce a values test to qualify for Summer jobs funding.

As the Shadow Minister of Seniors, I am very excited to be going back to Ottawa this upcoming week where I, along with my committee colleagues, will ensure the Liberal National Seniors Strategy reflects the needs of an increasingly aging population. The Justin Trudeau government cannot continue to ignore the changing demographics of this country, and I will do everything I can to hold this government to account.

The following is a transcript:

The Liberals have released their 2016 federal budget. Unfortunately, it offers very little for Canada’s small businesses except higher taxes. For instance, they’re scrapping their promise to stay on schedule to reduce the small business tax rate to 9%. They’re also cancelling the hiring credit for small business and increasing payroll costs. Small businesses are essential to Canada’s economy. But instead of helping job creators, the Liberals are raising their taxes. Conservatives have a strong record of keeping business taxes low. We’ll continue to push the Liberals to follow our lead and help small businesses in Canada.

LIBERALS PUTTING CANADIANS SECOND
Bill C-6 protecting the rights of foreign citizens first

Richmond, BC – Alice Wong, Member of Parliament for Richmond Centre, gave the following remarks after the introduction of the Liberal Government’s Bill C-6, an amendment to the Citizenship Act:

“Bill C-6 puts the interests of Canadians behind those of foreigners that have chosen to make no positive contributions to Canadian society.

Bill C-6 will allow Zakaria Amara to obtain Canadian citizenship again. Amara, part of the so-called “Toronto 18” is a Jordanian citizen that was convicted for life imprisonment in 2006 for terrorism and intentions to kill Canadians with explosives, just seven years after he immigrated to Canada. So extreme were his crimes that the judge ordered his citizenship revoked.

Do the Liberals really think Canadians believe that people such as Zakaria Amara should be given Canadian citizenship?

When will the government start to put the priorities of Canadians first?”